In various rankings from bodies that chart economic power, South Korea has beaten the U.S. In several areas such as fewer regulations on business and more open trade.

We don't want to be heading towards a European model on how to run our economy while these developing tigers are discovering and embracing our old ideals. We want pro-growth policies and less regulation so we can again unleash our collective animal spirits.

I never said South Korea was not successful. I just said it was not free market, any more than it is here. The Chaebol pretty much run things the way they wish, and the government steps out of the way, unless the Chaebol want something.

It is no different here. People talk about the "free market" but if that were the case, lobbyists would not exist. Companies hire lobbies to get preferential treatment at the expense of their competitors. This is not a free market system, but rather one where the people with money and power game the system to their advantage.

It is no different here. People talk about the "free market" but if that were the case, lobbyists would not exist. Companies hire lobbies to get preferential treatment at the expense of their competitors. This is not a free market system, but rather one where the people with money and power game the system to their advantage.

I would remind you that Warren Buffet has committed to donate most of his wealth to charity, and has secured promises from 40 other multi-billionaires to do the same.

If someone wins the lottery and gives a portion away, I wouldn't describe it as an achievement. No single individual should be able to accumulate and control $44b. It's nice that he decided to donate over $37b to charity but that doesn't make him charitable - he's essentially paying other people to be charitable with money he made from other money that he doesn't need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb_in_sb

n the same line of reasoning, you probably are also against Michael Phelps' uneven distribution of gold medals. Should he be allowed to keep just one and be required to give his remaining 7 gold medals to the less fortunate athletes?

Gold medals don't buy things like money does unless you send them to MC Hammer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wovel

Well I fall squarely into that top 1% and I think the 18% Capital gains tax is absurd and unjustifiable. I have no guilt, I play plenty of taxes at that 18% rate and can guarantee you my life would not be any different if it were taxed as regular income. My investment strategy would change little if any.

Thanks for your honest and well-worded post. If you're willing to share it, I'd be interested to hear what milestones there were in your investing history that led to your wealth - surely the risks of losing it all at some point had to have been quite significant. Also did you start out with your own earnings and what made you start investing?

Hard to imagine how you think you're qualified to pass judgment on something of which you've only been allowed the barest preliminary glimpse.

Agreed. I think, over time, we are going to see more and more of iOS in OSX. Like buttons down on the bottom like on the iPhone. I for one would like to see more similarity in format, colors, button location, etc!

I have to admit there is enormous technological turmoil on-going nowadays. Plus all those lawsuits and counter lawsuits over IP noted in previous fora. For myself, I find it hard to ferret out the trends with PCs, phones, and slates all in interplay.

In terms of Kinect, has it ever occurred to anyone here that Apple simply didn't want or care enough about it to make an effort to get it? There's nothing preventing Apple from negotiating with anyone if they feel it's worth it. You don't need to be a Silicon Valley insider to know that when Apple sees something they think is great, that they can develop and implement in just the right manner, they're all over it. As we know, Apple is quite conservative with their spending and they're much more apt to say no than yes to a lot of things.

It's nonsensical to believe that the Apple of 2010, with $50 billion+ in cash can't acquire technology they're dying to get. It might be a good idea to ask Apple about it, rather than assume what this guy is saying (especially *after* MS made him wealthy) is accurate. It makes for interesting PR to say (after the fact) that the people who turned him down did so out of ignorance or blindness/lack of vision or because they "didn't believe in [me] him." If any company today has vision and forward-thinking in abundance, it's Apple.

I'd be interested to hear Apple's reasons.

Gotta disagree somewhat, Sol.

Windows + Office sales is NOT a long-term strategy.

Glad to see everyone upgraded from the Vista nightmare and that Enterprise sales were very profitable - which is really where MS belongs. In the office.

The fact that MS' old stand-bys were once again their main source of revenue is probably the most discouraging piece of news about MS in months. It's pretty sad. It's the good old upgrade cycle. Windows and Office. It's been Windows and Office for years now. Which is why they're so easily embarrassed in key forward-looking markets by a smaller, faster (MUCH faster) and more innovative competitor.

Apple has beaten MS in market cap. Apple has just beaten MS in revenue, first time ever (in one of Apple's traditionally weak quarters... Christmas is bigger.)

The above targets were somethings critics said COULD NEVER happen.

But it DID happen. Because the aging Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack is declining in relevance before cloud-connected mobile devices.

Microsoft's major revenue streams today are pretty much what they were a decade ago: Office and Windows. If you compare this to Apple, in 2000 the Mac was Apple's major (and pretty much only) revenue stream. They then came to dominate several markets - mp3 players, digital music sales, mobile applications stores, succeeding wildly with smartphones and now media tablets. Microsoft's challenge moving into the next year is to expand into mobile in meaningful way (already late and offering nothing very special), mobile gaming, cloud services, etc.

The traditional PC is dying and MS has no answer to it. Cheap netbooks running a crippled version of Windows is not an answer. Trying to shove full Windows onto Microsoft's bad slate experiments is also not an answer.

In short, Apple has reinvented its business (successively) and profited, Microsoft has not.

MS has made little to no money from the consumer markets that matter the most today and which are the ones ready for explosive growth - the one's which Apple is already near-dominant in. In short, aside from what little they made from the Xbox, MS made all its money from the wrong things.

Apple is the one ushering in a New Age of computing. MS is not. OS X Lion brings iOS to the Mac as well as an entirely new software distribution channel for "computers." Apple is blurring the lines between the "computer" and the touch-enabled mobile device. OS X Lion will redefine the "operating system" as we know it (iOS already has, actually.) Think Macbook Air/iPad + OS X Lion + App Store is the future of "computing." MS is so far behind on this one it isn't even funny.

It's a sign of what's to come. MS can easily have a record quarter with Windows upgrades and Office sales - often sales by default, a nice chunk of that comes from the enterprise. This is what has always happened. And MS has in recent years *always* ended up paying dearly for it when it came to competing in markets that mattered (the one's Apple is in.) And it's caught up with them: it's a different ballgame when Apple outdoes them in revenue and leaves them in the dust in market cap.

The best news for MS would have been a decline due to lagging Windows sales. This might have awakened them to the reality that Apple is eating their lunch - not just today's, but tomorrow's as well. Instead the Licensing Cash Cow gives a little more milk (more like one last, big spurt before keeling over) and Ballmer proclaims publicly "The PC isn't dead!"

Yes Steve, it is. In two years you'll be gone, Windows Phone 7 (more like '07) having failed, and MS will be that much further in Apple's rear-view mirror. The sad part is you and your investors have (as usual) been lulled into thinking all is well after all. But it 'aint.

They most likely didn't think the implementation of Kinematics/Dynamics was impressive.

When capital gains taxes were slashed by Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton in 1997 it unleashed massive bubble speculation that has bedeviled our economy ever since, and Bush aggravated this with his 2003 tax cuts. On the other hand, President Reagan cut taxes on income earned by work but never cut capital gains by farther than that, and we had orderly and steady growth for many years followed by a very mild recession and then more healthy growth. Since 1997 we've been giving capital gains a lower rate than we take on working for a living. That's a large part of the trouble we're in now. We need to go back to having work and investment income taxed the same.

And that's why they're going up -- just about to where taxes are on work.

You don't earn your intelligence; in that respect you are blessed. Capitalism works, but there is also such a thing as proportionality. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between innovation and reward. There is nothing wrong in making that observation.

Nothing wrong with the observation, as long as it comes along with the acknowledgement that that's the way it is and bound to remain. We don't live in Bambi-land.

Nothing wrong with the observation, as long as it comes along with the acknowledgement that that's the way it is and bound to remain. We don't live in Bambi-land.

Thompson

I agree that human nature is generally static. So how is it that a transition from hunter/gatherers to where we are today ever occurred? Because knowledge is absorbed, adaptations occur, and kids assume that what they have learned has 'always been that way.' Your viewpoint does not allow for what has already happened.

If someone wins the lottery and gives a portion away, I wouldn't describe it as an achievement. No single individual should be able to accumulate and control $44b. It's nice that he decided to donate over $37b to charity but that doesn't make him charitable - he's essentially paying other people to be charitable with money he made from other money that he doesn't need.

The difference is that Warren Buffet didn't luck into his fortune. You can play semantics over whether of not he "earned" it, but to be successful for as long as he has been at his game, that is an achievement. And perhaps it is a personal achievement of his to share his amassed wealth with those less fortunate. In any case, I very much doubt he cares what any of us think of his wealth or his actions.

And maybe you don't value his contributions to charity, but I guarantee that the work that the recipient charities do will be valued by many people. I certainly don't think beneficiaries are going to be disgusted that the funding came from billionaires. Just because Warren doesn't bring the starving child food himself doesn't make the food his money buys any less filling.

Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous. This entire site is devoted to to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs. Yes, the comparison is very lopsided, but unless you're a monk living a humble life of poverty and moderating this message board from a higher plane of consciousness I don't believe you are in any position to tell people what they "need."

And with all due respect to the country I love, I trust that money more in his hands than in the hands of the US Federal Government.

Quote:

Gold medals don't buy things like money does unless you send them to MC Hammer.

They may not have the intrinsic value to buy things, but they sure do allow their recipients to make a few dollars. Do you think Michael Phelps would have sponsors, endorsement deals, public speaking opportunities, etc if he were just some guy that swam really fast at the Detroit YMCA? It's probably not fair that he was born proportioned in such a way that swimming is easier for him than others. Should he be barred from future competition to give others a chance to attain fame and fortune? After all, he probably doesn't "need" all of those medals.

Microsoft is launching battles against Apple, RIM & Google with Windows Phone 7 and against their PC partner Sony with the Kinect. They are spreading themselves too thin against major players. Ballmer is just getting some stock sold before some of these efforts fail and the stock goes even lower then it is now.

How about we drop the whole income tax thing and just tax sales? Then all those people being paid under the table get to pay their fair share.

We can eliminate the IRS and a good chunk of the "financial services" industry overhead from our economy as well.

AMEN!!!

That would be the BEST solution...I have been saying for many years, , yes, some like H&R block will have to change their business, but I agree, The IRS cost billions to keep running, just the savings there would be huge! plus all the "ilegal" money, and there are a few billions, will pay their share when they purchase almost everything, the most expensive stuff will have a higher taxes, food and medicine will have minimum or not tax at all..I could keep writing more and more! The IRS is outdated!!

Monday Nov 8. A man staff described as portly and rather sweaty was arrested at an AT&T store in Seattle today.

The man dressed in a trench coat, large brimmed hat and sunglasses was charged by Police with affray and resisting arrest.

According to witnesses the man became agitated when his order for two million HTC Surrounds could not be met, what followed was an extraordinary chase by police as the man danced around the store like a monkey, frothing at the mouth and yelling unintelligibly, pausing only to throw a chair at one staff member.

Details remain sparse on the identity of the man, who arrived at the store at the head of a convoy of armoured cars.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

The difference is that Warren Buffet didn't luck into his fortune. You can play semantics over whether of not he "earned" it, but to be successful for as long as he has been at his game, that is an achievement.

It is semantics though - I don't personally regard it as an achievement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexualintellectual

And perhaps it is a personal achievement of his to share his amassed wealth with those less fortunate.

What else could he do with it? There's no point in giving it to rich people. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime. The only real choices would be to keep it and be selfish or give to people who need it. It's still semantics but I just don't think not being selfish is an achievement, it should be expected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexualintellectual

And maybe you don't value his contributions to charity

That's twisting the wording a fair bit. It's good that the money is used for a good cause, it's just not an achievement IMO when he makes no sacrifice for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexualintellectual

Just because Warren doesn't bring the starving child food himself doesn't make the food his money buys any less filling.

They shouldn't be starving in the first place! They are only starving due to a corrupt system that unbalances the distribution of wealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexualintellectual

Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous.

No it's not. What reason is there for an individual to control more money than they can ever spend while people are starving to death as you point out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexualintellectual

This entire site is devoted to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs.

I was talking about personal wealth but in the case of Apple, they spend a lot of resources and work hard at what they do and their products are absolutely needed.

Microsoft IS indeed a dying company, they are down 13% and competition is Up 50%. Plus they have an idiot who thinks he's a visionary running the company.

Sorry, i know I shouldn't waste my time and rise to such a short and ill informed comment.. but it remains sad that a few people who have probably used a Mac for less time than they have been able to drink (that's assuming they have ever used a Mac of course) still thing that Microsoft has to lose for Apple to do well.

As Steve Jobs himself commented some years ago, that's not the case. Bboth companies are and remain hugely successful, and stock valuation is not the 'be all and end all' of measuring a companys success. (Its also a very fickle one - as any listed company knows).

Microsoft far from being a dying company just published their best financial results ever, still make more net profit than Apple (even now where Apple revenue is higher) due to Microsofts higher SW margins (and Apple's margins are amazingly good, so they take some beating). That may change - Apple may pull ahead - who knows, but it does not mean MS is declining (just as Apple making more money than Google does not mean Google are dying either!

Microsoft does not have the consumer profile that Apple does (though innovative tech like Kinect and Xbox Live are strong steps in engaging the consumer - and Windows Phone 7 looks interesting) .. but their core business is an remains just that - business.

Microsoft servers run behind the scenes in the majority of companies, and standards like Exchange are so widely respected and used that .. yes, partners like Apple licence them for use in iPhone etc.) Office is a world standard, that has now moved to the www and where Google has made little inroad - and they even support our favourite HW platform still - despite all the snide carping in these and other forums... Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 has just been released to excellent reviews... though I know there will inevitably be a bunch of 'Mr Angry and Sad types' who say that's Office is the work of the devil... and the only true way is iWork (good product but limited i several areas).

Hey ho... for those of us with a bit more silver in the hair (read sense), we know this is a dynamic industry and in 10 years the hot products will no doubt look very different again - but I'll take any bet that both Apple and Microsoft are both still multibillion companies that lead their respective markets... the fun will be in seeing who else has joined them.. and how they are both then positioned.

It is semantics though - I don't personally regard it as an achievement.

What else could he do with it? There's no point in giving it to rich people. It's more than he could ever spend in a lifetime. The only real choices would be to keep it and be selfish or give to people who need it. It's still semantics but I just don't think not being selfish is an achievement, it should be expected.

That's twisting the wording a fair bit. It's good that the money is used for a good cause, it's just not an achievement IMO when he makes no sacrifice for it.

They shouldn't be starving in the first place! They are only starving due to a corrupt system that unbalances the distribution of wealth.

No it's not. What reason is there for an individual to control more money than they can ever spend while people are starving to death as you point out?

I was talking about personal wealth but in the case of Apple, they spend a lot of resources and work hard at what they do and their products are absolutely needed.

Unbelievable nieve these comments are. I honestly pity your outlook on the world. Communism has been shown to destroy nations, yet you postulate that North America become communist?

Perhaps the most ironic part is that you advocate communism for the better part of your post, then go on to praise Apple at the bottom. Apple is the poster product for capitalism - no big time investors, no Apple.

I think what a lot of these people don't realize, is that all these wealthy venture capitalists are there to help ideas grow. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak didn't have the necessary capital to start Apple, so they turned to Mike Markkula (an affluent angel investor).

I also love how you scoff at Warren Buffet donating of 37 Billion to charity - absolutely pitiful on your part.

So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).

Hard to imagine how you think you're qualified to pass judgment on something of which you've only been allowed the barest preliminary glimpse.

Why even bother posting that? Do you normally push into other peoples conversations, roll your eyes and sook about something? Surely that can't be working for you?

Read the post I was responding to. Read my post to the end. Make sure you understand, if you don't then take time out and think about it. If you have something intelligent to add then post away, otherwise don't bother wasting your time.

So let me see what you think should have happened: Buffet should have been taxed marginally higher because of his success (lets say 50% of his total earnings as a hyperbole). That 20B goes to the government where approximately 25% overhead is used to administer it. The remaining 15 B is squandered on middle of the ground politics (you know, the ones that aren't to left or right wing to prevent political suicide). Maybe 10% (1.5B) of this reaches the truly needy (ie the sick, the legitimately impoverished, the disabled etc).

Precisely why I trust his handling of the funds over my elected officials.

And while it's all well and good to say that people should be selfless by nature, it's simply not reality. The sooner we accept facts like this rather than trying to force the larger part of humanity to change through some means of government control, the better off we will all be.

If you want to help people, then help them. What my neighbor does or does not do for the greater good does not affect my ability to make a contribution. Just like whatever personal fortune he may be sitting on is not preventing me from making my own.

Perhaps if people reallocated some of the time they spend pissing and moaning about how unfair things are to actually making a positive difference in their own lives (and if desired, the lives of others), we'd see some real change and not just some bullsh!t on a bumper sticker.

It's much more likely that the sale of the stock indicates Balmer is on his way out already.

The kind of big re-alignment of company goals and staffing that would push a "famous" CEO like Balmer out, who is so closely associated with the companies fortunes, would seriously affect the stock. Balmer would be wise to cash out if he had heard rumours of his own ousting.

Unfortunately, while Balmer *staying* is good news for Apple fans, Balmer *leaving* is bad news for everyone, probably including Microsoft stockholders in the short run.

Not a chance. IF Ballmer's selling shares is a sign that he's leaving, it's probably a massive BUY signal for MSFT.

OTOH, it could just be his typical loony 'thinking' style. I used to have a boss who is convinced that taxes are going to quadruple in the next couple of years and we're going to have hyperinflation again, so he's selling all his assets and buying gold. Ballmer has never struck me as being any more intelligent than that.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

You don't earn your intelligence; in that respect you are blessed. Capitalism works, but there is also such a thing as proportionality. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between innovation and reward. There is nothing wrong in making that observation.

Change the rules of global capitalism to make abuse of dominant market share by bundling other products to stifle competition, copying features, selling sub-standard products with known issues, bullying competitors, and selling or promising products you dont have all illegal, and also include network effects and open standards in competition rules. Capitalism creates inequality but at least lets try to put capital where it will do good not where it will produce things people dont like.

I don't care even if you're SJ himself, the system that allows those kinds of payouts is sickening.

What "system" are you talking about?
Do you think that when people sell personal property, something should be limiting how much they can make from that sale?
How about when you sell your house? You should be limited to what you can get for it.

Also, to say that nobody should be allowed to amass that amount of money because they don't "need" it is ridiculous. This entire site is devoted to to a company that makes products that nobody absolutely needs.

Yes, most people use the word "should" when standing on soapboxes and pulpits.

And did you just say nobody needs Apple's products? Who are you to declare what mankind's needs are? A century ago, people like you would've argued that nobody needed electricity, sound recording, refrigeration, the telephone, or the internal combustion engine. Or the first mass market personal computer, the Apple ][. They're all luxuries for wealthy people. In fact, we don't need money, we can go back to barter economies...

And yet, look at how these unnecessary inventions have reshaped the world, and the economies they have sustained! The same is true in the information age, with the Internet and ubiquitous personal computing. It will transform civilization, and we will need these things.

Maybe you can go back to the stone age, but I'm staying right the fuck here in the 21st Century. I need my iPod, iPad, MacBook Air and 24/7 connection to the Internet.

Change the rules of global capitalism to make abuse of dominant market share by bundling other products to stifle competition, copying features, selling sub-standard products with known issues, bullying competitors, and selling or promising products you dont have all illegal, and also include network effects and open standards in competition rules. Capitalism creates inequality but at least lets try to put capital where it will do good not where it will produce things people dont like.

I don't know what the 'rules of global capitalism' exactly are, although obviously we all live in a smaller world figuratively. I think the G20 meetings are of much interest, and precedents are being established right now. The EU is a work in progress. Yes, we live in a global economy.

For those of us who have worked in the computer industry – our endeavors have made new situations possible. I've been getting photos from relatives vacationing in Europe in almost realtime. I am old enough to remember a controversy over the replacement of slide rules by hand calculators in college. I remember my negative reaction when I first heard the term 'data mining' in the now by-gone mainframe era.

A thoughtful post, of which I appreciate. Don't assume I advocate 'laissez-faire.' I try to be pragmatic, and learn from experience as best as I can. The law (and 'rules') have yet to coalesce regarding computers and a global economy.

Ballmer, aside from the other meathead symptoms, is an anti-tax Republican who gave lots of money to an tax initiative, I-1098 in Washington state. It would have levied a state tax of 5% on individuals making over $400,000. Ballmer, of course, would have been included. Gates Sr. was an endorser of the affirmative. The negatives won.

Hope you guys like the future, where if the poor want anything, they'll have to pay for it in sales taxes, while fatheads like Ballmer pay zip.

Oh. I forgot. This is because Ballmer is motivated by every last penny he can extract from the company as he drives it over a cliff.

By the way, if you look at that last quarter, Microsoft made billions on Office and Windows upgrades. They made about $300 million on the Xbox. Kick that up another, say, $300 million for Kinect, and so what?